Double fatal crash, Rotorua (29 April)

[Mom]

My opinion, FWIW...leave the drunk driver's family out of this!
My ex-husband had 16 convictions for drunk driving...up until the time I left him (more since, plus jail time). I had not a shit show in hell of stopping him from driving, yeah, I could hide the keys etc etc - and get the bash for my troubles.
When I was at work I had no control over wether he decided to put our kids in the car and go down to his local to get trollied.
Some of you are acting like his family quite happily put the kids in the car with a drunk - how the hell do you know if they were even there at the time?

BTW - ex still regularly drives drunk! His convictions go back to 1976!

Thank you for this.........sums up what I was trying to say.......

[bl4de]

Understandably our emotions run pretty darn high in these circumstances
...I just had a thought tho- what if the drivers family come in here
(for whatever reason...I mean, in a way tragically they have been indirectly connected to the motorcycling world)

And they read some of the things that we say.......

Just my opinion, doesnt mean i'm right.

Lets hope they do! You cant tell me his family had no idear of his history, And why would you let your children be taken in a car with someone who had no right to be on the road! Someone out there had a chance to tell this tosser put the keys down.

[candor]

How many times were these kids transported by a drunk and how many more times will they be before the age of 15. Has anyone cared to ask - will anyone? A bit of judgment and a few disapproving looks round the community then it'll be business as usual - whatever that means. These are STILL at risk kids not the smacked ones, I'd bet. Have been for awhile as one was his kid and it said he has never desisted from driving. Being a drunk not sobre at it I imagine either.

The fatherless 5 year old has had how many scary rides? This family is not even in the phone book (I looked for an address to send them all something), which may actually show where the money goes. The biker victims families all have phones.

[Hitcher]

This family is not even in the phone book (I looked for an address to send them all something), which may actually show where the money goes. The biker victims families all have phones.

Don't read too much into that. I know people who are either not in the phonebook because they're deliberately unlisted, listed under a partner's or an assumed name, or only use a cellphone. There are probably other reasons too why a family that may have a phone connected to their primary residence that is not listed in a phone directory. I don't think that that makes them lesser people.

[Little Miss Trouble]

This family is not even in the phone book (I looked for an address to send them all something), which may actually show where the money goes. The biker victims families all have phones.

Just because the family of this person choose not to have their phone number and address listed where any odd person can find it you assume they spend all their money on alcohol? because they share the same last name they must all be alcoholics?? Gee if were gonna look at it that way that probably makes me one too.

You won't find me listed anywhere either, I changed my cell number last year to get away from random abuse from people I've chosen to distance myself from, only very close friends know where I live too. Its a personal choice and not one you should go picking bones over when you know nothing about the people who made said choice.
Rant over.

[mark247]

Less pointless speeding fines(111km/hr)

Ok, if a policeman pulls a guy over on a tuesday afternoon at 2pm for doing 111kmh, its very likely the guy was just speeding and is sober. But dont you think pulling over a car 8am on a sunday morning for a doing 111kmh is going to more likely have a drunk driver in it than pulling a car over randomly at 100kmh? Get my point? Well i get my own point, lol.

[RT527]

So, in 2000 , as a recidivist drunk driver he was "indefinately" disqualified (though indefinately does not seem to mean indefinately). Yet in 2004 , with that history, we was convicted again. And received what punishment?

Well , all I can say is I think the 3 who died and the offenders family have been let down by one group of people and that would be the ones who are too busy trying to tell us how to lead our lives, If we had our priority's right then a drunk driver on his 2nd conviction would not only spend time inside , but also loose the family car by way of auction with the money being put back into supplying more enforcement resources, yes I know hell just go and buy another car when he gets out, or someone else will buy/steal one for him, i don't know any easy answers but i do know that if you are done hard by the law early enough then the ones who aren't real bad buggers will be less likely to offend again, it works elsewhere in the world so why cant it work here.

[candor]

Just because the family of this person choose not to have their phone number and address listed where any odd person can find it you assume they spend all their money on alcohol? because they share the same last name they must all be alcoholics?? Gee if were gonna look at it that way that probably makes me one too.... Its a personal choice and not one you should go picking bones over when you know nothing about the people who made said choice.
Rant over.

Yep Ok - point taken from both of you. That was random speculation. But I still think all is not well with that family to have 2 lots of kids in that car with that particular guy. That was my main point. No-one I know (and that have high regard for - I should qualify that) would not know or ensure that their kids were with responsible adults at all times. Most parents I know are protective like that, and if they aren't then I don't consider that OK. I consider it slack, call me judgmental

Hell - I won't leave my dog to be babysat with people who could leave gates open etc, and this is the same principle here. As others said - people had to know his record and his history (so where is the common sense) and if they didn't know him that well then WTH was he doing transporting their kids?

I know he was sick and diminished responsibility. And that a lot of people think its ok to turn a blind eye - even where their kids are involved. Its just sad, because too often the kids aren't lucky. Theres evidence too that people let young boys ride with impaired drivers more often too. They get hurt by them more.

[peasea]

Don't read too much into that. I know people who are either not in the phonebook because they're deliberately unlisted, listed under a partner's or an assumed name, or only use a cellphone. There are probably other reasons too why a family that may have a phone connected to their primary residence that is not listed in a phone directory. I don't think that that makes them lesser people.

I haven't been in the book for years. You can make that choice; not only unlisted (not in the book but available through directories) but I'm also 'private and confidential'. Telecom can be charged if they reveal my number or address. It only takes a phone call.

[sunhuntin]

Yep Ok - point taken from both of you. That was random speculation. But I still think all is not well with that family to have 2 lots of kids in that car with that particular guy. That was my main point. No-one I know (and that have high regard for - I should qualify that) would not know or ensure that their kids were with responsible adults at all times. Most parents I know are protective like that, and if they aren't then I don't consider that OK. I consider it slack, call me judgmental

Hell - I won't leave my dog to be babysat with people who could leave gates open etc, and this is the same principle here. As others said - people had to know his record and his history (so where is the common sense) and if they didn't know him that well then WTH was he doing transporting their kids?

I know he was sick and diminished responsibility. And that a lot of people think its ok to turn a blind eye - even where their kids are involved. Its just sad, because too often the kids aren't lucky. Theres evidence too that people let young boys ride with impaired drivers more often too. They get hurt by them more.

we're not in the book either, for good reason.

while i dont and wont have kids, i know damn sure if i ever did have any, i wouldnt let them near anyone like the jerk off who caused this.
its like the drunk father who fell asleep at the gas station... following weeks paper screams that hes "a good father" [or so his wife says]
there needs to be something done, and soon. have cops stationed at every bar. car keys get handed in as you enter, and you get a slip of paper with numbers on [like a locker combination] end of the night, you bring the slip to the bar, cops breath test you. under, you get your keys. over, you get a lift home. [cops also use their own judgement, as alcohol affects people different. what may be legal for you may be well well over for me.] keys go with the cops, who either give them to you at home, of you have to pick up from the station the next day.
the downside of this, is bars will have to have parking where remaining vehicles can be locked in.

[Horney1]

I'm with Katwyn, Youngtart and others defending sensibility. We don't know the actual circumstances in which the driver left wherever he left from or who was there and what was done to prevent him driving. I've also tried to deal with the odd alcoholic over the years and know that they can be very determined, cunning and very aggressive. The family has gone through a terrible time as have the family and friends of the riders. Negative and accussative talking won't help anyone. Get facts then play the blame game. Although, I'm not over there reading the papers, I don't think we even know if he was over the limit or not do we? It may have been something as simple as a kid kicking the steering wheel or the driver (being paranoid with no licence) looking over his shoulder for a cop???

[peasea]

we're not in the book either, for good reason.

while i dont and wont have kids, i know damn sure if i ever did have any, i wouldnt let them near anyone like the jerk off who caused this.
its like the drunk father who fell asleep at the gas station... following weeks paper screams that hes "a good father" [or so his wife says]
there needs to be something done, and soon. have cops stationed at every bar. car keys get handed in as you enter, and you get a slip of paper with numbers on [like a locker combination] end of the night, you bring the slip to the bar, cops breath test you. under, you get your keys. over, you get a lift home. [cops also use their own judgement, as alcohol affects people different. what may be legal for you may be well well over for me.] keys go with the cops, who either give them to you at home, of you have to pick up from the station the next day.
the downside of this, is bars will have to have parking where remaining vehicles can be locked in.

Actually, you don't need the cops. The technology is there to prevent a lot of this. Put the key in the ignition (car or bike) state your name into a wee screen (security and sobriety all sussed in one) engine fires up and you're off. Wrong voice pattern/ too much booze? You go nowhere.

[sunhuntin]

Actually, you don't need the cops. The technology is there to prevent a lot of this. Put the key in the ignition (car or bike) state your name into a wee screen (security and sobriety all sussed in one) engine fires up and you're off. Wrong voice pattern/ too much booze? You go nowhere.

how avaliable is this, and whats the cost?
i doubt that many alcoholics would be willing or able to afford to have it installed. same with many other lower end families. [my parents wouldnt be able to afford it, and we are not quite gutter level yet]
with cops being funded by the tax payer, it would be easier. unless they started selling cars already fitted with the technolgy, but there would still be many older cars without it.

other than the cost, it sounds like a damn good idea.. two or more birds with one stone. would cut car theft right down to nearly nil.

[peasea]

how avaliable is this, and whats the cost?
i doubt that many alcoholics would be willing or able to afford to have it installed. same with many other lower end families. [my parents wouldnt be able to afford it, and we are not quite gutter level yet]
with cops being funded by the tax payer, it would be easier. unless they started selling cars already fitted with the technolgy, but there would still be many older cars without it.

other than the cost, it sounds like a damn good idea.. two or more birds with one stone. would cut car theft right down to nearly nil.

I was thinking out loud. The technology IS there it just isn't fitted to vehicles. If a breathylizer can beep when you exceed a certain level then it can operate a cut-out switch. Voice patterns aren't that hard to record and load into any vehicle's on-board computer. You can put voice instructions into cell phones for crying out loud. If the booze/security device were fitted at the time of vehicle construction the cost would be very little on the scale of things, I'm sure. Like putting insulation in an old house, it's a mish, but when you're building it... piece of cake.

[Little Miss Trouble]

Yep Ok - point taken from both of you. That was random speculation. But I still think all is not well with that family to have 2 lots of kids in that car with that particular guy. That was my main point. No-one I know (and that have high regard for - I should qualify that) would not know or ensure that their kids were with responsible adults at all times. Most parents I know are protective like that, and if they aren't then I don't consider that OK. I consider it slack, call me judgmental

Hell - I won't leave my dog to be babysat with people who could leave gates open etc, and this is the same principle here. As others said - people had to know his record and his history (so where is the common sense) and if they didn't know him that well then WTH was he doing transporting their kids?

I understand completely, If I should one day have kids I know I'll be scarily protective but my point was that we don't know the full story and condeming the family when we may never know is hurtful and nasty. Me, I send them my wishes and hopes that the children recover quickly.
I also hope that this terrible "accident" (-read murder) causes some to take a good long hard look at their actions (probably not) so with that failing I guess my vote is for tougher penaltys and some initiatives like peasea and sunhuntin have suggested